AA networks...

[Chris A]

3 hours ago, mikebse2a3 said:

Ultimately it should become obvious that if poor recordings or room acoustics are a problem the loudspeaker's network can have an audible influence on the perceived sound quality but it is the least effective and most limited tool to attempt compensation for those issues.

Mike and Roy are sharing wisdom, IMHO. 

 

I've always found that fixing problems at their source is the only way to achieve actual and lasting success.  Fix the source music tracks, fix the room acoustics, fix loudspeaker directivity issues: then you've actually fixed the problem.  All else are band-aids that create their own problems.

 

Chris

[Schu]

9 hours ago, Chief bonehead said:

Again. I disagree.  You are compensating for your recordings. The network is an integral part of the speaker design. Where this arbitrary swapping of networks came from I have no idea. 

 

so then... if I follow your logic here Roy, and I think I do, in your opinion you are saying I purchased the wrong speakers?

 

 

[mikebse2a3]

31 minutes ago, Schu said:

10 hours ago, Chief bonehead said:

Again. I disagree.  You are compensating for your recordings. The network is an integral part of the speaker design. Where this arbitrary swapping of networks came from I have no idea. 

 

so then... if I follow your logic here Roy, and I think I do, in your opinion I purchased the wrong speakers?

 

 

I follow Roy's logic as, using the loudspeaker to fix your recordings is the wrong tool and you've permanently altered every recording you play through it.

 

With an adjustable EQ (designed for that type of recording compensation) you would do a much better job and could be used only when needed and otherwise adjusted or bypassed so that every recording can be properly compensated for when possible. Not every recording can be salvaged but many can be improved much to our greater enjoyment..!!!

 

edit: I should add Chris A's methods that he has shown of un-mastering less than ideal recordings is another option that should be considered.

 

miketn

[Schu]

The recordings are not the issue... they never were.

 

I think it is very easy to go off on a tangent and start talking about source material when that same source material sounds superb in the same system sans a small change.

[Chris A]

13 minutes ago, Schu said:

The recordings are not the issue... they never were.

 

Just as a matter of curiosity...how do you know this? 

 

Chris

[JohnA]

On 8/11/2016 at 1:32 AM, muel said:

A perfectly flat frequency response doesn't sound that great to me.  

 

This is something of a philosophy question, too.  I prefer as flat a response curve as practical so that the recording is presented as nearly like it was recorded as possible.  However, that doesn't mean the recording cannot stink.  Early copies of "Tres Hombres" on CD were rough.  Muffled vocals, boomy bass, cymbals, what cymbals?  The LP wasn't like that, as I remember.  

[Chris A]

29 minutes ago, John Albright said:

Early copies of "Tres Hombres" on CD were rough.  Muffled vocals, boomy bass, cymbals, what cymbals?  The LP wasn't like that, as I remember.  

The best recording that I've heard of this album is the unmastered 1988 CD (Warner 3270-2), much, much better than the LP...

Here is an unmastering curve for the first track--Waitin' for the Bus--as an example of how you're not going to fix this track using a different passive crossover or a high output impedance amplifier to effect "corrective EQ":

 

[JohnA]

Hmmmm.    How did you, or how would I, accurately determine such a curve?  If it's by ear, why not just approximate it with tone controls? 

[JohnA]

16 hours ago, Chief bonehead said:

I think the bottoms line with me is this....use the correct network network for the design of the speaker. If you are going to use "better" components then for Petes sakes have the freq adjusted. If you don't then you will do the same amount of damage if you use an eq. And no abritarily changing nets does not give you a better sounding speaker. It gives you a different sounding speaker and it is no longer a Klipsch speaker. Damn I feel better. 

 

Adjust the frequency how?   

[mikebse2a3]

2 hours ago, Schu said:

I think it is very easy to go off on a tangent and start talking about source material when that same source material sounds superb in the same system sans a small change.

I;m and I believe others are just trying to understand and possibly explain why you and others are hearing differences with these network changes.

 

Can you clarify or add more information to this comment Schu...? Are you saying the networks are a small change or they cause a small change? 

 

miketn

[Chris A]

17 minutes ago, John Albright said:

Hmmmm.    How did you, or how would I, accurately determine such a curve?  If it's by ear, why not just approximate it with tone controls? 

 

See this thread for more info on how it's done. Tone controls really can't "approximate" needed EQ, in my experience.  You need at least 1/3 octave EQ controls across the entire listening band, and parametric controls are much better. 

 

Part of your answer is looking carefully at the spectrograms and cumulative spectra of each track (before and after). The balance is listening on a calibrated set of studio-quality monitors at near concert volume.

 

Also, your word "accurately" implies "one size fits all".  I've found that those with loudspeakers or listening rooms with issues wind up deviating significantly from a flat curve because of room, loudspeaker, and even driving electronics issues. They apparently don't take any real effort to get their system flat EQ (on-axis and off-axis), correct loudspeaker phase/time delay issues, and control nearfield acoustic reflections.  So they wind up having to apply significant amounts of EQ to correct, but they also have residual issues. 

 

In case you're wondering: I'm using 2-way home Jubilees with TAD TD-4002 drivers, EQed flat within 1 dB from 400-12000 Hz as measured in-room, and within 3 dB below 400 Hz, in an acoustically treated room.

 

Chris

[muel]

14 hours ago, Chief bonehead said:

Again. I disagree.  You are compensating for your recordings. The network is an integral part of the speaker design. Where this arbitrary swapping of networks came from I have no idea. 

 

If it makes you feel better... after experimenting with quite a few different crossovers I am slowly coming back to the originals in all my Heritage.   I do spend a little extra on capacitors though.

[Deang]

Let me see if I understand how this works: The AL-4 is the correct (optimized) network for the MDF built LaScala II, but the AA is not. However, if someone needs a set of replacement networks for their vintage, plywood built LaScalas (which have been running the AA) -- they should call Klipsch, and buy some AL-4s ("consistency thou art a jewel"). 

 

While most have been telling me that any difference I'm hearing between capacitors is in my head, I've continued to maintain that if one wants to hear how a vintage Klipsch Heritage loudspeaker is supposed to sound, build the networks using parts that have the same properties as the parts used in the original builds (somewhat lossy). I use paper in oil and wax paper/film capacitors, with wax impregnated autoformers and coils. I haven't done a polypropylene based Type A or AA build in a long time (though I still believe those early Auricap builds sounded very good). So, considering the parts I'm using, what is there for me to EQ back into place? Too funny (I get it right, but I'm still wrong). 

 

A manufacturer has a responsibility to deliver a product that measures as good as possible in as many areas as possible. I have the AK-5 anechoic FR plot, which naturally looks much flatter than the one I have for the AA. However, the AK-5 plot has some smoothing applied, while the AA plot I have is raw - so it's not apples to apples. With that said, it's still easy to see why many find these loudspeakers sounding brighter than those from the past. When you drag down that bell shaped bottom to even up the response, the mid and high frequency response sounds disproportionately elevated. It seems just about everyone notices this except the listening panels at Klipsch, and those already outfitted with hearing aids. 

 

A flat power response with steeper crossover slopes is nice, especially for those who have large, open rooms with vaulted ceilings. However, the rest of us listen in small to modest sized rooms, and typically sit 8 -12' off of the loudspeakers. Toole readily admits that those who sit close will experience better imaging if dispersion is somewhat restricted. An uneven power response and collapsing verticals isn't the end of the world -- if so, interest in Heritage would have died out 30 years ago. 

 

Shallow slopes certaintly have their issues, but so do steep slopes. 

 

As for power requirements, most of my customers are using 60 wpc or less. If someone wants to bleed their ears out with 200 wpc or more -- I'll be sure to send them to Klipsch. :-)

 

Most don't have the financial means and/or skill sets to create a proper, acoustically treated room. Also, most have a better half to contend with, and options are limited. 

 

In 2-channel land, many are still "purists", those who like the idea of keeping it simple -- they want as little in the signal path as possible. I suppose I'm one of those. 

 

I have questions, but I'm not going to ask them if the answers come in the form of questions. I agree that this is a solid method of teaching, but seriously, at some point you really do have to provide the answers. I have no interest in playing "riddle me this".

[pauln]

I hear what Deang is saying.

 

I bought one of the very last type "I" La Scalas about the time the II's were first coming out. Finished in piano black, upper grilles, and AL-5 networks. I pulled out the AL-5s and put in Type A, paper in oil. Each of the AL-5s had a higher component count than my 3.5 watt SET mono blocks combined. I am sure they sound fine with high power amps that most are using. I can't speak to the plots, slopes, and curves, but the Type-A sound "right" in the old style La Scala being driven by flea power amps peaking close to 1 watt. From what I recall over ten years ago, it was the AL-5 high end that motivated the change, but it has been so long I have no recollection of details. I just know I've been as happy as can be since then.

[Don Richard]

So, people are comparing loudspeakers to other loudspeakers, crossover networks to different crossover networks. I wonder if how many people compare their system (electronics, speakers, and room) to a live performance any more? I guess everyone is too busy or broke trying PIO caps and $35 resistors in their crossovers to go to a concert anymore.

[pauln]

If you are referring to me, I'm a musician that performs live concerts. I played three hours of jazz Saturday night with one of my bands... I know the sound of live performance. 

[Don Richard]

2 hours ago, pauln said:

If you are referring to me, I'm a musician that performs live concerts. I played three hours of jazz Saturday night with one of my bands... I know the sound of live performance. 

 

Musicians have a unique perspective on how a performance is perceived - they are located in the middle of the performing group, not in the audience. Recordings are not mixed for listeners located in the middle of the group. Musicians cannot hear how they sound out front when they are playing in a group, they literally have no idea. That's why bands generally have a sound man running FOH for them.

 

The above written by a reformed musician turned sound man.

[SWL]

A surround sound, virtual reality from the musicians' point of view could be another format to listen to......or not.[emoji41]

Sent from my SM-G920R4 using Tapatalk

[Chief bonehead]

20 hours ago, Deang said:

Let me see if I understand how this works: The AL-4 is the correct (optimized) network for the MDF built LaScala II, but the AA is not. However, if someone needs a set of replacement networks for their vintage, plywood built LaScalas (which have been running the AA) -- they should call Klipsch, and buy some AL-4s ("consistency thou art a jewel"). 

 

While most have been telling me that any difference I'm hearing between capacitors is in my head, I've continued to maintain that if one wants to hear how a vintage Klipsch Heritage loudspeaker is supposed to sound, build the networks using parts that have the same properties as the parts used in the original builds (somewhat lossy). I use paper in oil and wax paper/film capacitors, with wax impregnated autoformers and coils. I haven't done a polypropylene based Type A or AA build in a long time (though I still believe those early Auricap builds sounded very good). So, considering the parts I'm using, what is there for me to EQ back into place? Too funny (I get it right, but I'm still wrong). 

 

A manufacturer has a responsibility to deliver a product that measures as good as possible in as many areas as possible. I have the AK-5 anechoic FR plot, which naturally looks much flatter than the one I have for the AA. However, the AK-5 plot has some smoothing applied, while the AA plot I have is raw - so it's not apples to apples. With that said, it's still easy to see why many find these loudspeakers sounding brighter than those from the past. When you drag down that bell shaped bottom to even up the response, the mid and high frequency response sounds disproportionately elevated. It seems just about everyone notices this except the listening panels at Klipsch, and those already outfitted with hearing aids. 

 

A flat power response with steeper crossover slopes is nice, especially for those who have large, open rooms with vaulted ceilings. However, the rest of us listen in small to modest sized rooms, and typically sit 8 -12' off of the loudspeakers. Toole readily admits that those who sit close will experience better imaging if dispersion is somewhat restricted. An uneven power response and collapsing verticals isn't the end of the world -- if so, interest in Heritage would have died out 30 years ago. 

 

Shallow slopes certaintly have their issues, but so do steep slopes. 

 

As for power requirements, most of my customers are using 60 wpc or less. If someone wants to bleed their ears out with 200 wpc or more -- I'll be sure to send them to Klipsch. :-)

 

Most don't have the financial means and/or skill sets to create a proper, acoustically treated room. Also, most have a better half to contend with, and options are limited. 

 

In 2-channel land, many are still "purists", those who like the idea of keeping it simple -- they want as little in the signal path as possible. I suppose I'm one of those. 

 

I have questions, but I'm not going to ask them if the answers come in the form of questions. I agree that this is a solid method of teaching, but seriously, at some point you really do have to provide the answers. I have no interest in playing "riddle me this".

dean your opinion has an agenda.  that i dont respect.....you cannot possibly understand the issues with nets as i have gathered from years of experience of reading what you do.  

[Deang]